AFL Round 3 - Non MFC Games (2017)

[Adam The God 30,421]

8 minutes ago, Lord Travis said:

Can't come back from 0-3. They travel now and play West Coast and GWS next two weeks. They're missing a few key players. Swans Will fight back into the 8 but won't go all the way now. Their mids have lost form at a remarkable rate. Jack has been average for a while now, but Parker, Hannebury, JPK etc have gone from league leaders to average this year. 

Pies are decent middle of the ladder team this year. Hope we roll them twice again!

Joshy is still a great midfielder. One of the best in the game, but now that the other mids around him aren't picking up some of the slack, all the attention goes on him.

[Deemented Are Go! 3,684]

My God I just [censored] hate Collingwood 

[whatwhat say what 22,949]

Meth Coke in Perth and the GW$ - Swans could be 0-5

[Diamond_Jim 12,628]

Not much flowing football

Hard to say what that game meant but because it was so close it was very entertaining

Collingwood definitely closed down Sydney's traditional run.

Sydney v GWS in a week or two will be a season defining game for the Swans.

Still.... when I opened this post I asked for a close game and we certainly got it.

Could not see that free against Zac Jones.... ball up at best

Edited April 7, 2017 by Diamond_Jim

[Pates 9,660]

Interesting, the Swans could be 0-5. They've got WC in Perth and then the Giants. 

As been said even when they were clawing themselves back I never felt they looked likely to pinch it. It was more from Pies giving them opportunities, or the Pies simple not taking theirs. 

Two chances Swans had at the end they were not even a shadow of their former selves. One driving long to a 1 on 3 (why weren't there more bodies in there?), and then a Swans player (not sure who) fumbled a short kick which should have been a shot on goal. 

Don't rate the Pies, but where does that leave the Swans?

Edited April 7, 2017 by Pates

[Deestroy All 14,266]

Swans midfield in the first 3 rounds has reminded me of us at our worst. Everyone on the inside going for the ball with 4 opposition players waiting on the outside to run off with it. 

[Moonshadow 17,677]

2 minutes ago, DemonAndrew said:

Meth Coke in Perth and the GW$ - Swans could be 0-5

Would rather it be the Pies, but I guess the Swans will have to do! Hehe.

[Forest Demon 4,681]

I remember the last couple of trade periods when we were wanting to trade one of our top 3 picks for Parker or Kennedy. Great players, but I would swiftly show you the door if you tried to swap either of them with a Clayton Oliver today, given how many years of good footy Oliver has ahead of him. Probably lucky Roosy didn't get his way.

[Moonshadow 17,677]

Mayne looked very slow. Poor pick up.

[dazzledavey36 55,361]

10 minutes ago, A F said:

They never looked like it the Swans. They're in a bit of trouble I reckon. They have some injuries, but their depth has been exposed a bit.

They will be fine. Alir will be a star defender and Florent looks like a gunthat will pan out a good career and even young Haywood looked very promising . Heeney still to come back in too.

Sydney are good at regenerating talent over and over and i expect this to continue.

[Adam The God 30,421]

Good call @Goodvibes. Props.

[Adam The God 30,421]

6 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

They will be fine. Alir will be a star defender and Florent looks like a gunthat will pan out a good career and even young Haywood looked very promising . Heeney still to come back in too.

Sydney are good at regenerating talent over and over and i expect this to continue.

It's their midfield that looks slow and ordinary. They need more pace around the stoppages. Stop Kennedy and look down on Jones off half back and you should beat them, even with Heeney back.

[steve_f 40]

36 minutes ago, Macca said:

North started 0 & 4 in '75 and won the flag.

As did the Demons in the early nineties.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

13 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Very fumbly game. If not for the close finish it would've been unwatchable 

So you also saw the 20 or more throws and double/one handed gives and tosses that I saw that weren't called Moon! Many right in front of at least one ump. Glad it wasn't just me ?

[dees189227 12,401]

Wow what a game. Sydney lost it in the 1st quarter when they got off to a slow start. 

I always felt like it was all set up for Buddy to kick the winning goal.

Wow sydney 0-3. 

[daisycutter 29,743]

Just now, dees189227 said:

Wow what a game. Sydney lost it in the 1st quarter when they got off to a slow start. 

I always felt like it was all set up for Buddy to kick the winning goal.

Wow sydney 0-3. 

 we don't want 2 sydney sides up the top of the ladder

[pineapple dee 2,892]

6 minutes ago, Rusty Nails said:

So you also saw the 20 or more throws and double/one handed gives and tosses that I saw that weren't called Moon! Many right in front of at least one ump. Glad it wasn't just me ?

The AFL decided the throw pass is okay since the doggies did it all last year. I saw several throws by Collingdog players right in front of umpires not penalised. They have obviously decided they need to have the pies win a couple of games and one Sydney team can be unsuccessful. By jingo, some of the spoils by Collingwood tonight were impressive.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

6 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

Wow what a game. Sydney lost it in the 1st quarter when they got off to a slow start. 

I always felt like it was all set up for Buddy to kick the winning goal.

Wow sydney 0-3. 

Apart from the last 15 minutes Buddy was overly selfish on a few occasions earlier throughout the match and could have given off a few more by hand inside or over the top. He is Buddy I realise but IMO tried the fancy stuff around corners under significant heat a few too many times trying to kick the hero goal. He made up for it a little with that amazing kick inside in the last 10 minutes and another handball over the top on the run but too late to save the match by then.

The other turning point was the free kick against Zac which 9 times out of ten would have been called 50 meters or play on. The man on the mark stepped over at the same time as Zac stepped off the line meaning he did not wait to hear the play on call. Umpires usually call a straight up 50 against stepping over before the call. Of course this is Collingwood we're talking about though.

[Demon Dynasty 17,109]

5 minutes ago, pineapple dee said:

The AFL decided the throw pass is okay since the doggies did it all last year. I saw several throws by Collingdog players right in front of umpires not penalised. They have obviously decided they need to have the pies win a couple of games and one Sydney team can be unsuccessful. By jingo, some of the spoils by Collingwood tonight were impressive.

The AFL have turned a blind eye to blatant throwing for years now pineapple. As you say the Doggies took it to another level last season and won and premiership on the back of it. Anything to keep the ball moving and game flowing apparently, even if it means we no longer play the game the way it supposed to be played. May as well start playing the odd scrum half, a full back and some wingers from here on. 

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

8 hours ago, brendan said:

When was the last time a side started 0-3 and made finals?

Melbourne in 2006?

North were 9-0 last year and almost missed the finals, long season.

[brendan 3,437]

7 minutes ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Melbourne in 2006?

North were 9-0 last year and almost missed the finals, long season.

Yep just checked it was the dees lost 1st 3 games then won next 4 All under 10 points 

[Jara 1,153]

Bloody useless Swans. Seeing Collingwood lose always gets me set up for a great week-end. 

[sue 9,145]

11 hours ago, Rusty Nails said:

The other turning point was the free kick against Zac which 9 times out of ten would have been called 50 meters or play on. The man on the mark stepped over at the same time as Zac stepped off the line meaning he did not wait to hear the play on call. Umpires usually call a straight up 50 against stepping over before the call. Of course this is Collingwood we're talking about though.

It was a bit hard to tell from the TV coverage when the umpire called play on. But it is true that no matter how blatant the play-on is, the umps will usually pay 50m if they haven't called play-on before the man on the mark moves.  That irks me.  I think the rule needs reversing. Let the man on the mark take the initiative and if the umpire subsequently judges he infringed before the player with the ball moved off line, then award the 50m penalty.   Why wait until the umpire notices? 

On the other hand this may lead to the umps needing to make a lot of such decisions, since when well back from the man on the mark, players very often go off-line well before the umpire calls play-on.  So they'd be many more times when the man on the mark may move earlier than they can now.

As for throwing, I feel like I'm watchimg rugby these days.

Edited April 8, 2017 by sue

[daisycutter 29,743]

6 minutes ago, sue said:

It was a bit hard to tell from the TV coverage when the umpire called play on. But it is true that no matter how blatant the play-on is, the umps will usually pay 50m if they haven't called play-on before the man on the mark moves.  That irks me.  I think the rule needs reversing. Let the man on the mark take the initiative and if the umpire subsequently judges he infringed before the player with the ball moved off line, then award the 50m penalty.   Why wait until the umpire notices? 

On the other hand this may lead to the umps needing to make a lot of such decisions, since when well back from the man on the mark, players very often go off-line well before the umpire calls play-on.  So they'd be many more times when the man on the mark may move earlier than they can now.

As for throwing, I feel like I'm watchimg rugby these days.

agree about the throwing. so blatant

zac was an idiot. definitely played on. no sympathy

[sue 9,145]

16 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

agree about the throwing. so blatant

zac was an idiot. definitely played on. no sympathy

Yes he was.  I'm not suggesting sympathy for him, quite the contrary. I think there should not be a 50m for grabbing a bloke doing that even if the umpire  hasn't got around to calling play on.  There seems to be little sympathy for the man on the mark when a 50m penalty is applied in those cases.  Just let the players make the decision about whether play on has occured.  And ping them if they get it wrong.

Edited April 8, 2017 by sue